The Great Big 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Thread [Megamerge]

bonkey

On a seperate, but related note...

new news!!!

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060620213809990004&ncid=NWS00010000000001

Kernel

bonkey wrote:

I'm concentrating, but I still don't see two sevens seperated by a 5 in there.

Is this like that fnord thing?

Here is more information on his aviation history and achievements:

http://www.skepticfiles.org/mys3/learbiou.htm

A 707 captain at the age of 28, and a 727 captain. The 757 was the replacement for the 727 so I believe the man knows what he is talking about.

http://www.fantasticforum.com/1res/showthread.php?threadid=4802&perpage=15&pagenumber=6

Kernel

bonkey wrote:

On a seperate, but related note...

new news!!!

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060620213809990004&ncid=NWS00010000000001

I was reading this on BBC earlier, pure unsubtantiated heresay. I was going to post it, but then I remembered that this forum isn't open to any theories mildly conspiratorial.

oscarBravo

Kernel wrote:

What has that quote about his beliefs about venus got to do with the fact that he is a seriously qualified pilot? Nothing. You're using some of his 'far-out' personal beliefs to try to discredit him on an entirely seperate matter.

It's not just a stray remark taken out of context from a background of well-balanced logic. He comes across as completely barmy, paranoid and delusional.

Let's look at some of his assertions:

they had to get into the cockpit

Not exactly challenging.

and pull the circuit breaker for the transponder

A feat of electronic engineering in its own right.

- sit in the pilot seat

6-700 hours of training there alone.

disconnect the auto-pilot from the flight management system

I'm open to correction, but I understand that can be accomplished by moving the controls beyond a set threshold. The autopilot cuts out automatically.

That's assuming manual control was required. If it were me, I'd figure out the heading to New York - about 15 seconds' work with a handheld GPS - and dial it into the autopilot.

- turn the airplane, push the throttles all the way forward, find Manhattan - then line up on a pre-planned course

As above, not exactly rocket science. Later:

hitting the Pentagon was even more of a feat because when you are going that fast there is a tremendous amount of air creating this lift and as you head towards the ground, that air reacts against the wing and pushes you up

It sounds like he's talking about ground effect. He's dumbing it down - that's not how ground effect works - and it's simply not true anyway.

Seriously - has anyone tried my thought experiment, mentally shoved the stick all the way forward and still stayed aloft? Is there some mysterious aspect of ground effect that will prevent a sharp pitch forward if you shove on the yoke? Does anyone really believe that ground effect will keep a plane in the air with the nose pointed down?

Sure, I'm just an amateur with 24-odd hours logged. But I can remember floating along in ground effect with the yoke held back, and my instructor warning me on peril of my life not to let it forward.

I'm not casting aspersions on Lear's expertise as a pilot - simply on his motivations.

Kernel

I believe Lear as an aviation expert on these matters, I'm not 100% sure that the pentagon wasn't hit by a plane, what I do doubt is the whole 'Al-Qaeda global terror network' orchestrating the 911 attack. There are too many inconsistencies, and I believe that the US government or rogue agents therein (or even agents with a higher level of control over the US) staged this attack to achieve their objectives. It's not a far out stretch, since they have been achieving their objectives and sending soldiers to war based on patriotism and bull**** stories.

Bin Laden was CIA - indeed he may still be CIA, and Al-Qaeda was set up to allow current world events to transpire and create a new enemy to replace the reds.

“Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.”

— Julius Caesar


“Today, Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow, they will be grateful. This is especially true, if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond – whether real or promulgated – that threatened our very existence. It is then that all the peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing that every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished with the guarantee of their well-being, granted to them by their world government.”

— Henry Kissinger, at the Bilderberg Conference in Evians, France, 1991

DublinWriter

oscarBravo wrote:

That's assuming manual control was required. If it were me, I'd figure out the heading to New York - about 15 seconds' work with a handheld GPS

You need a clear sky line-of-sight for a handheld GPS to work.

As as for 'dialing it into the autopilot'? This isn't Buck Rogers in the 25th Century.

The hi-jackers had minimal training on light-aircraft. They certainly wouldn't have been familiar with the auto-pilot system of a 757. The fact that they *all* managed to figure out how to turn off the transponders is pretty impressve in itself.

Even the offical Pentagon video shows 'something' travelling at massive speed (about 400 knots) at an altitude of 10 foot parallel to the ground. Considering the guy had to almost execute a barrell-roll around the Pentagon to achieve this, I think he should have applied to join the Red Arrows, never mind Al'ciada.

Kernel

More quotes I like:

"This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector." - Plato

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." - U.S. President James Madison

"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death". - Adolph Hitler

"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.

"The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened". - Josef Stalin

oscarBravo

DublinWriter wrote:

You need a clear sky line-of-sight for a handheld GPS to work.

...like you get out the front windows of an airplane, for example. Same as I get out the windscreen of my car, where I use GPS almost daily.

DublinWriter wrote:

As as for 'dialing it into the autopilot'? This isn't Buck Rogers in the 25th Century.

No, this is the 21st Century, where airline pilots have masters in computer programming, and have to resolder the hard-wiring to make course corrections.

Or, more likely, modern autopilots have front-panel controls that let you dial-in heading and altitude settings. Of course, these are closely guarded state secrets.

DublinWriter wrote:

The hi-jackers had minimal training on light-aircraft. They certainly wouldn't have been familiar with the auto-pilot system of a 757. The fact that they *all* managed to figure out how to turn off the transponders is pretty impressve in itself.

I can't find a breaker panel image, but in small airplanes the breakers have labels on them that say what they do. I'm guessing a 757 has something similar.

Of course, in all the small airplanes I've flown, the transponder also had a switch that said "off".

DublinWriter wrote:

Even the offical Pentagon video shows 'something' travelling at massive speed (about 400 knots) at an altitude of 10 foot parallel to the ground.

Maybe I'm blind, but I've yet to see any flying object in that video.

DublinWriter wrote:

Considering the guy had to almost execute a barrell-roll around the Pentagon to achieve this, I think he should have applied to join the Red Arrows, never mind Al'ciada.

You mean the 2,800fpm descending rate-1 turn? I've done rate-1 turns, and I've done rolls. There's a difference.

bonkey

DublinWriter wrote:

As as for 'dialing it into the autopilot'? This isn't Buck Rogers in the 25th Century.

'cording to this it just might be.

The hi-jackers had minimal training on light-aircraft. They certainly wouldn't have been familiar with the auto-pilot system of a 757. The fact that they *all* managed to figure out how to turn off the transponders is pretty impressve in itself.

Again, from the same URL, it would appear there is little reason to doubt that they would have been familiar with the cockpit-layout, auto-pilot functionality and operation.

You can, of course, resort to the usual "but of course the official coverup would say that" line of reasoning

SkepticOne

Kernel wrote:

What has that quote about his beliefs about venus got to do with the fact that he is a seriously qualified pilot? Nothing. You're using some of his 'far-out' personal beliefs to try to discredit him on an entirely seperate matter.

If a carpenter said something stupid about world politics or geography, does that mean he must know nothing about woodworking? Flawed logic.

He sounds like he's a bit loopy tbh. I would take everything he says with a pinch of salt.

tunaman

Former Vietnam Combat and Commercial Pilot Firm Believer 9/11 Was Inside Government Job

http://www.lewisnews.com/article.asp?ID=106623

There was no fooling former Air Force and commercial pilot Russ Wittenberg the morning of 9/11. He knew it was an inside job from the get-go, knowing the ‘big boys’ were up to the same dirty tricks they played in the Kennedy assassination and Pearl Harbor.

The government may have fooled millions of Americans with its cockamamie official story, but the former fighter pilot who flew over 100 combat missions in Vietnam and who sat for 35 years in the cockpit for Pan Am and United, wasn’t one of them.

All this focus on what hit the pentagon just distracts from what really brought down those three massive buildings that day.

EXPLOSIVES PLANTED IN TOWERS, NEW MEXICO TECH EXPERT SAYS

http://www.world-action.co.uk/explosives.html

Posted: 14 September 2001
By Olivier Uyttebrouck, Journal Staff Writer

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the
airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some
explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the
towers to collapse," Romero said. Romero is a former
director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing
Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and
the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and
other structures.

What about the steel beams sticking out of the American Express Building?

http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/5415/132105410e13167d588b5xp.jpg

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/641/13211173340407bf70fb1ky.jpg

The building that is hit by the steel beams (WFC3), is the one with the green pyramid roof...

http://www.solcomhouse.com/Worldtowers.jpg

Here are a few photos of the WTC, which destroys the ridiculous pancake theory...

http://img18.echo.cx/img18/6052/biggart5247jv.jpg

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/site1085.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/image017.jpg

http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/sor11.jpg

bonkey

tunaman wrote:

What about the steel beams sticking out of the American Express Building?

What about them?

The building that is hit by the steel beams (WFC3), is the one with the green pyramid roof...

Yup. Why is this a problem?

Here are a few photos of the WTC, which destroys the ridiculous pancake theory...

Afraid not.

Showing pictures and measuring distances might seem all impressive, but from a mathematical point of view, it is meaningless.

What you need to do is look at trajectories of falling objects. If you measure these, you can find what the horizontal velocity was at any given point including the point of ejection from the main mass.

Then and only then does the distance mean anything.

Once you've figured out the ejection-speeds, trajectories, etc. you can estimate whether or not its consistent with a gravity-assisted fall, or whether external forces (i.e. explosives) are needed.

So if you want the collapse pattern to destroy the theory, you've a hell of a lot more work to do, I'm afraid.

You can be pretty damn sure that the reason there's no mathematics provided with these pictures is for one of two reasons:

1) Whoever propagates the theory knows the mathematics would show the distances do not refute the pancake theory.

2) Whoever propagates the theory doesn't know the mathematics involved or couldn't be bothered doing them and is therefore speaking from an uneducated position.

The damage-pattern from both WTC 1 and 2 is in accordance with the pancake theory. The majority of the building collapsed downwards as it mathematically should in the absence of horizontal vector forces. Isolated elements fell in parabolic curves, leading to a larger - but still quite small - radius of lesser damage.

Here's a pretty picture to illustrate it properly.

This pattern is consistent with a gravity-assisted collapse.

Its also interesting to note some other stuff on this picture. Look at WTC7 and the two buildings beside it. Remember how much noise was made about how WTC7 got clobbered but they didn't? Mathematically, thats correct. Not only that, but the Verizon building, which should also have been damaged...was. It took three years to restore it....damage to the front face, and damage from WTC7's collapse.

Note also the penetration into WTC 7 - deeper than the Verizon building, but still leaving the front and side faces mostly intact (the West face would be somewhat protected by the South face...except at the corner, which was visibly damaged in pictures of it.

It goes without saying that the lack of damage to the North face of WTC7 is utterly unsurprising, and also completely unindicative of the state of the remainder of the building. Given its height and how far out in the damage-radius it is, one would expect that the damage would be concentrated in the lower half (at most) of the south wall...so one would expect its roof to also appear mostly undamaged.

The beam in WFC3 is the only one slightly outside this radius, and a single exception out by so small a margin is mathematically insignificant.

So if you honestly think your pictures destroy anything, think again.

bonkey

tunaman wrote:

http://www.world-action.co.uk/explosives.html

Posted: 14 September 2001
By Olivier Uyttebrouck, Journal Staff Writer

And a whole 7 days later:

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/ABQjournal/

He changed his mind! This is, of course, proof that the government got to him, and not just more considered reflection. 5 years on, with NIST reports and whatnot...who knows what he might believe.

I have to ask...did you actually know he reversed his position? Or did you just not check?

SpitfireIV

bonkey wrote:

What about them?

To me them beams appear to have been forced up and into the building (not seem strange?), not pointing down and forced inward as would happen with falling debris.

bonkey

CroppyBoy1798 wrote:

To me them beams appear to have been forced up and into the building (not seem strange?), not pointing down and forced inward as would happen with falling debris.

So you're suggesting they were shot upward at an angle, after having fallen downwards from the debris cloud?

Or that simultaneous with the collapse there was a secondary effect giving upward + horizontal motion to objects at low altitude?

Well, for a start, I have the same initial reaction - show me the math.

See, I'm pretty sure everyone here can agree on the following:

1) gravity was in effect
2) WTC 1 and 2 collapsed

To assert anything more, one has to show that these two effects combined could not have resulted in what is being shown. Pictures don't show this. What you think it looks like doesn't establish anything.

Mathematics does. Physics does.

If someone wants to maintain that external forces are required, then they must show that external forces are required. The burden of proof here is not on anyone suggesting that gravity-assisted collapse of the building following a loss of structural integrity could not have done this. If you want to allege that there is no way the beams could have ended up where they did from the forces that were unquestionably present then there is firstly a requirement to establish that this is the case. There is - ideally - a second requirement to show that any alternate theory does supply the forces required if one wishes to use this notion to support any additional theory.

Science is not just another factor here. It is the factor. tunaman asserts that his pictures destory some well-modelled theory. Without the physics behind it - without the math - his assertion is simply an appeal to the technically illiterate to believe what "feels right".

Here's a really simple parallel. Take a power-kite and a surfboard. The surfer on the board is being towed by the kite. How close to the wind can he travel? Intuitively, we'd say the best he can manage is heading across the wind. If you know a bit about boats, you'd maybe know he should be able to cut maybe to within 30 degrees of "head on" to the wind. If you know the dynamics behind kiting, surfing, and all the other factors at play, you'll realise that the guy can more-or-less sail directly into the wind.

So think about it. YOu can see a video with the wind blowing left-to-right, and a guy under sail power travelling right-to-left. Madness.....until you look at the math.

Thats all I'm asking here. Show me where someone has done the math.

SkepticOne

tunaman wrote:

Former Vietnam Combat and Commercial Pilot Firm Believer 9/11 Was Inside Government Job

http://www.lewisnews.com/article.asp?ID=106623

Unfortunately, he also thinks Pearl Harbour and the Kennedy assasinations were inside jobs. Still he seems a little less of a nut job than the John Lear character.

tunaman

bonkey wrote:

What about them?

Yup. Why is this a problem?

Do you really think gravity alone was responsible for launching those massive steel beams hundreds of feet into the air?

Showing pictures and measuring distances might seem all impressive, but from a mathematical point of view, it is meaningless.

Claiming measuring distances are meaningless when it comes to mathematics is strange to say the least.

The damage-pattern from both WTC 1 and 2 is in accordance with the pancake theory. The majority of the building collapsed downwards as it mathematically should in the absence of horizontal vector forces. Isolated elements fell in parabolic curves, leading to a larger - but still quite small - radius of lesser damage.

Again you make blatantly false claims to try to support you position. The vast majority of the steel beams were ejected outward...

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/image017.jpg

The pancake theory is a work of fiction. NIST tried to recreate what happened using smaller scale models in lab tests, but no matter what they tried they were unable to prove the pancake theory in any way credible.

Here's a pretty picture to illustrate it properly.

You are reduced to producing a made up diagram as some kind of proof, which in reality all it does is show just how weak your position is.

Nice patterns though.

Its also interesting to note some other stuff on this picture. Look at WTC7 and the two buildings beside it. Remember how much noise was made about how WTC7 got clobbered but they didn't? Mathematically, thats correct. Not only that, but the Verizon building, which should also have been damaged...was. It took three years to restore it....damage to the front face, and damage from WTC7's collapse.

Can you point out the damage to the verizon building that would take anywhere near three years to repair?

http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/5530/wtc7cleaned1ag.jpg

Intense heat mapped under WTC 1, 2 and 7 five days later...

http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/9491/wtchotspotkey3dp.jpg

Must have been the result of the raging fires that official story supporters believe occured, again despite the lack of evidence.

So if you honestly think your pictures destroy anything, think again.

In your mind maybe, but more and more people are seeing through all the lies and can see for themselves the reality of what happened that day.

tunaman

bonkey wrote:

And a whole 7 days later:

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/ABQjournal/

He changed his mind! This is, of course, proof that the government got to him, and not just more considered reflection.

You said that not me. I never claimed it was proof of anything.

You don't think it's very possible he was gently encouraged to re-evaluate his position?

Whatever happened I think it's fair to say his immediate claims were dangerous and not very clever.

I have to ask...did you actually know he reversed his position? Or did you just not check?

Again you feel the need to throw in a sly dig in an attempt to insult my intelligence.

It's fairly obvious you know very little about the man, so I will let you in on some information I uncovered...

http://infohost.nmt.edu/mainpage/news/2002/4june02.html

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Senator Pete Domenici today reported that Van Romero of Socorro has been appointed by President Bush to serve on a White House commission aimed at closing the educational achievement gap for Hispanic American youth.

Domenici confirmed that Romero, vice president for Research and Economic Development at New Mexico Tech, has been selected to serve on the President’s Advisory Commission on Education Excellence for Hispanic Americans. Bush created the commission by executive order on Oct. 12, 2001.

So less than a month after his retraction he finds himself working in the Bush administration...

That's not all...

http://infohost.nmt.edu/mainpage/news/2002/25sept03.html

WASHINGTON, D.C., Sept. 18, 2002 - U.S. Senator Pete Domenici today heralded the release of nearly $15 million to the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (New Mexico Tech), which the institute will specifically use to provide two terrorism-preparedness courses for First Responders.

The funding award was made to the Socorro institution through the U.S. Justice Department's (DOJ) Domestic Preparedness Training and Technical Assistance Program. Domenici, a member of the Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary (CJS) Appropriations Subcommittee, secured the program funding in the FY2002 CJS Appropriations Act and last year's emergency supplemental bill.

http://infohost.nmt.edu/mainpage/news/2003/18dec01.html

New Mexico Tech Vice President Romero Named a Top Lobbyist
by George Zamora
SOCORRO, N.M., Dec. 18, 2003 – New Mexico Tech Vice President Van Romero has been tapped as one of “six lobbyists who made an impact in 2003” in an article featured in this month’s issue of Influence magazine.
Romero, who is in charge of research and economic development at the research university in Socorro, was profiled in “The Players,” a special year-end feature in the national magazine which identifies a handful of prominent Washington, D.C. lobbyists who made a mark in 2003.

“From his perch 2,000 miles outside of the Beltway, this physics Ph.D. understands exactly how Washington works,” the article states. “A major chunk of his job involves lobbying for federal government funding, and if the 2003 fiscal year was any indication, Romero is a superstar.”


Looks like retracting his statement really paid off...

tunaman

SkepticOne wrote:

Unfortunately, he also thinks Pearl Harbour and the Kennedy assasinations were inside jobs. Still he seems a little less of a nut job than the John Lear character.

Many people now believe the US government knew in advance of the Japanese attack, as they had been able to break their codes years before...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Yardley

As for JFK there is a huge amount of evidence which proves it was an inside job. Take a look at this footage of the secret service stand down just before he was killed...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1596619659201820052&q=jfk

Very similar to the lack of fighter jets on the morning of 9/11...

bonkey

tunaman wrote:

Do you really think gravity alone was responsible for launching those massive steel beams hundreds of feet into the air?

Last time I looked at those photos, not one those massive steel beams was at an altitude higher than the collapse-point of WTC1 or 2.

The suggestion, therfore, that anything launched them into the air is baseless.

The question as to whether gravity could have launched them upwards or been responsible for their sidewards momentum is, at its most charitable, indicative of an utter lack of understanding of the force of gravity.

Claiming measuring distances are meaningless when it comes to mathematics is strange to say the least.

Distance in the absence of height fallen and a number of other factors is, indeed, meaningless. If you're confused, thats ok. You're only reinforcing my claim that you simply don't understand the math involved, which utterly undermines any suggestion that you have anything more than a wild-ass guess about what the data means.

Again you make blatantly false claims to try to support you position. The vast majority of the steel beams were ejected outward...

You can call it false all you like. I've explained how mathematically a still picture cannot give you information about the direction of movement. While you insist on showing still pictures to gack up claims about direction of movement, all you're doing is reinforcing (yet again) my suggestion that you haven't a notion about the physics involved here.

The pancake theory is a work of fiction.

No, Its not. The pancake model is supported by any and every relevant expert who's looked at it.

NIST tried to recreate what happened using smaller scale models in lab tests, but no matter what they tried they were unable to prove the pancake theory in any way credible.

First I've heard of it. Can you back this assertion up with anything credible, other than your word that it happened?

You are reduced to producing a made up diagram as some kind of proof, which in reality all it does is show just how weak your position is.

If thats what you want to believe, fair enough. You've already repeatedly demonstrated that your unerstanding of mathematics simply doesn't appear to be up to the job here, so I'm not going to waste more time explaining why my "made up diagram" is vastly more useful than your still photos of where things were mid-collapse.

Can you point out the damage to the verizon building that would take anywhere near three years to repair?

You've lost me.

Are you denying the building took 3 years to repair? Are you suggesting that repairs were deliberately slwoed down to make the damage look more serious? Are you suggesting, maybe, that I'm just making this up?

Look - do a google on "Verizon Building Damage". Pick what results you want, so I'm not influencing which sources you pick. Come back and explain how your one picture somehow refutes what pretty-much every article you get in the firs number of pages all say.

Intense heat mapped under WTC 1, 2 and 7 five days later...

http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/9491/wtchotspotkey3dp.jpg

Must have been the result of the raging fires that official story supporters believe occured, again despite the lack of evidence.

And here we have the usual "lets go off on a total tangent" tactic. Explain how this is relevant to what I was talking about, else I'm not biting.

In your mind maybe, but more and more people are seeing through all the lies and can see for themselves the reality of what happened that day.

If we leave aside your predeliction to call them lies, and the fact that your "reality" has virtually countless different versions, I don'#t see what your point is.

I've shown that you either don't understand the math and physics behind what happened or are shying away from it for some inexplicable reason. I don't care how many other people flock to your denial-of-science flag, it only makes your argument more popular, not more credible.

Your stance is not too dissimilar from the creationists in the US trying to argue that ID is a science, or those like Dubya that try and deny the existence (whatever about the cause) of global warming. You can form eloquent arguments, and find loads of pseudo-scientific arguments backed by pretty pictures, but until you're actually willing to go head to head with science and show that it backs your argument......you've got nothing.

You can believe you have something, all you like. You'll almost certainly believe that the dismissal you get from the vast majority of the scientific community is because they've been pressured by The Man to keep quiet. But in reality, its because the scientific community deals with science...the one thing you are studiously avoiding introducing to your arguments.

jc

tunaman

bonkey wrote:

Last time I looked at those photos, not one those massive steel beams was at an altitude higher than the collapse-point of WTC1 or 2.

I suggest you have another look...

http://img57.exs.cx/img57/463/0f-WTC1Implosionfrom.jpg

The top of the picture clearly shows beams being ejected upward.

The suggestion, therfore, that anything launched them into the air is baseless.

There was no air around the WTC that day?

Again you can clearly see massive steel beams being launched into the air...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5511929825159810080&q=wtc+collapse

The question as to whether gravity could have launched them upwards or been responsible for their sidewards momentum is, at its most charitable, indicative of an utter lack of understanding of the force of gravity.

That is my point. Gravity alone couldn't possibly be responsible for lauching those steel beams hundreds of feet into the air.

Distance in the absence of height fallen and a number of other factors is, indeed, meaningless. If you're confused, thats ok. You're only reinforcing my claim that you simply don't understand the math involved, which utterly undermines any suggestion that you have anything more than a wild-ass guess about what the data means.

You are the one who doesn't know the mathematics involved.

The pancake theory relies on the steel being heated to a high enough temperature to lose more than half it's strength, in less than an hour in the case of the south tower.

Are you aware of the laws of thermodynamics?

The first part of the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that heat flows spontaneously from hot to cold. In other words, if you heat one portion of steel, that heat will flow spontaneously to the coolest areas of the steel.

The larger the object is, the longer it will take for that area of the steel to reach these temperatures being that heat always flows to cooler areas if possible and the rate of flow is based on the thermal conductivity. We're not talking about a little oven here, we're talking about 110 floors of inter-connecting steel.

You can call it false all you like. I've explained how mathematically a still picture cannot give you information about the direction of movement. While you insist on showing still pictures to gack up claims about direction of movement, all you're doing is reinforcing (yet again) my suggestion that you haven't a notion about the physics involved here.

While all you do is reinforce the observation you don't really know what you are talking about...

No, Its not. The pancake model is supported by any and every relevant expert who's looked at it.

Your precious pancake theory completely fails when trying to explain how two 110 storey buildings fell in between 10 and 12 seconds.

The pancake collapse theory requires floors to stack on top of each other. However, floors were being pulverized into fine dust throughout the WTC collapse event, so floors could not stack on top of each other. In other words, either a floor is pulverized or it is stacked. One cannot pulverize a floor and stack it at the same time.

First I've heard of it. Can you back this assertion up with anything credible, other than your word that it happened?

http://911review.com/coverup/nist.html

http://911review.com/coverup/imgs/resistcall.jpg

If thats what you want to believe, fair enough. You've already repeatedly demonstrated that your unerstanding of mathematics simply doesn't appear to be up to the job here, so I'm not going to waste more time explaining why my "made up diagram" is vastly more useful than your still photos of where things were mid-collapse.

At least you admit your evidence is just some made-up diagram. I am always left wondering why the pancake theory supporters, who are so sure of themselves, rarely if ever link to official government websites...

Even the official theory is full of speculation...

However, the NIST report elsewhere says that its "probable collapse sequence" "does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable."

Early tests conducted on steel beams from the WTC show they generally met or were stronger than design requirements, ruling them out as a contributing cause of the collapse of the towers.

The FEMA report on WTC 7 states that "Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue".

And here we have the usual "lets go off on a total tangent" tactic. Explain how this is relevant to what I was talking about, else I'm not biting.

You are trying to defend the pancake theory, which fails to explain the molten steel found in the basements of the WTC more than a month later.

If we leave aside your predeliction to call them lies, and the fact that your "reality" has virtually countless different versions, I don'#t see what your point is.

9/11 is a black and white issue.

Official story v inside job.

Pancake theory v demolition job.

WTC 7 demolition = inside job.

I've shown that you either don't understand the math and physics behind what happened or are shying away from it for some inexplicable reason. I don't care how many other people flock to your denial-of-science flag, it only makes your argument more popular, not more credible.

The irony really is incredible.

Your stance is not too dissimilar from the creationists in the US trying to argue that ID is a science,

Here we go again...

or those like Dubya that try and deny the existence (whatever about the cause) of global warming.

Seeing as you brought this up, here's a question for you.

The earth has been, by all accounts, rapidly heating up for the last 50 odd years, so why do you think there has been such a distinct lack of urgency until now?

You can believe you have something, all you like. You'll almost certainly believe that the dismissal you get from the vast majority of the scientific community is because they've been pressured by The Man to keep quiet. But in reality, its because the scientific community deals with science...the one thing you are studiously avoiding introducing to your arguments.

In reality the scientific community are smart people, so they obviously know the implications of the official story being exposed for the myth it really is.

I think you were right to completely ignore my last post about Van Romero and what has happened to him since he retracted his explosive statement, as it looks very suspicious.

oscarBravo

tunaman wrote:

Are you aware of the laws of thermodynamics?

The first part of the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that heat flows spontaneously from hot to cold. In other words, if you heat one portion of steel, that heat will flow spontaneously to the coolest areas of the steel.

The larger the object is, the longer it will take for that area of the steel to reach these temperatures being that heat always flows to cooler areas if possible and the rate of flow is based on the thermal conductivity. We're not talking about a little oven here, we're talking about 110 floors of inter-connecting steel.

Yesterday I soldered several N-connectors onto low-loss coax cable. The centre conductor is composed of solid copper. If what you're saying is true, I couldn't possibly have completed the job until the entire cable (2m long) heated up to the melting point of solder.

Better yet, in the past I've soldered connectors on to the end of a drum of cable before cutting the cable to length. How long does it take to heat 50m of Ecoflex to the point where solder can melt?

tunaman wrote:

The pancake collapse theory requires floors to stack on top of each other. However, floors were being pulverized into fine dust throughout the WTC collapse event, so floors could not stack on top of each other. In other words, either a floor is pulverized or it is stacked. One cannot pulverize a floor and stack it at the same time.

Why not? What is it about a pulverised concrete floor that makes it weigh less than a solid concrete floor?

bonkey

tunaman wrote:

The top of the picture clearly shows beams being ejected upward.

No, it doesn't.

A directional vector cannot be determined from a single image. It is technically, mathematically and scientifically impossible. You require two points to determine the simplest (i.e. straight-line) trajectories.

Now, if those beams were shown to be above the total height of the WTC1 or 2 buildings, then you could argue that they must have been ejected upwards, but you aren't showing that they're at any specific height. Why aren't you showing it?

Y'know...when I was a maths student in Uni, the use of the word "clearly" or "obviously" in a student's calculations was typically understood as "I don't know how to show this properly". I have a suspicion that this is the case here as well.

There was no air around the WTC that day?

Care to explain what the logic of this question is? Objects don't fall upwards just because there's no air, so even if your allegation that there were upwards-moving beams is true, this question still makes no sense.

Again you can clearly see massive steel beams being launched into the air...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5511929825159810080&q=wtc+collapse

Ah. video! Far better than still pictures. I'll check this out as soon as I'm not behind a firewall which blocks it...should be this evening sometime.

Incidentally, how do you know they are massive steel beams? The entire building was clad in lighweight aluminium "strips". One would expect the majority of the "beam-shaped objects" to be these lightweight strips (from the outside of the building and more plentiful), so what, exactly, tips you off that these are massive steel beams?

The pancake theory relies on the steel being heated to a high enough temperature to lose more than half it's strength, in less than an hour in the case of the south tower.

Are you aware of the laws of thermodynamics?

The first part of the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that heat flows spontaneously from hot to cold. In other words, if you heat one portion of steel, that heat will flow spontaneously to the coolest areas of the steel.

The larger the object is, the longer it will take for that area of the steel to reach these temperatures being that heat always flows to cooler areas if possible and the rate of flow is based on the thermal conductivity. We're not talking about a little oven here, we're talking about 110 floors of inter-connecting steel.

Lets assume you're correct. You aren't, and I'll comprehensively explain why in a moment, but lets assume you are.

You do realise that this utterly refutes any possibility of using cutting charges made out of thermite? In fact, the concept of a cutting charge is utterly refuted by your allegation that localised heating doesn't exist because heat transfers from hot to cold. So thermite couldn't cut steel.

So if you're right, and this heating couldn't have occurred, then thermite also could not have been used. Strange...

So maybe you're not right. Lets see why that might be...

Firstly, the second law of dynamics does not state[/]i that heat flows spontaneously from hot to cold. The 2nd law states that there is no process that, operating in cycle, produces no other effect than the subtraction of a positive amount of heat from a reservoir and the production of an equal amount of work. An implication of this is that entropy generally increases (it doesn't strictly always hold true, but we'll ignore that for now). A consequence of this implication is that heat will transfer from hotter to colder locations within a closed system as this results in a higher overall entropy.

Now...here's the kicker. Those steel beams? They're not a closed system. They were touching the foundations, parts of the building and....wait for it...the air. If heat transferance is instantaneous in the manner that you're suggesting then to melt a part of the beam, we'd actually have to heat the entire universe to that point. Clearly, this is ridiculous. People manage to heat things all the time. We must be overlooking something. Actually, thats not true...I'm not overlooking it at all, nor is OscarBravo. Its just you.

What is this factor you're overlooking? Conductivity and resistance (they being opposite sides of the same coin). Suggesting that the heat would have to heat the steel evenly but not to the air touching it doesn't fill me with confidence that you understand the implications of the 2nd Law.

Your precious pancake theory completely fails when trying to explain how two 110 storey buildings fell in between 10 and 12 seconds.

If you want to show it fails then show it fails, rather than just alleging it does.

The buildings fell at below free-fall speeds, indicating resistance. The pancake theory predicts that they would fall at below free-fall speeds, due to resistance. I see no complete failure here - I see an agreement with observation until such times as you can produce the collapse time predicted by the pancake theory and verification that your 10-12 sec is an accurate figure.

The pancake collapse theory requires floors to stack on top of each other. However, floors were being pulverized into fine dust throughout the WTC collapse event, so floors could not stack on top of each other. In other words, either a floor is pulverized or it is stacked. One cannot pulverize a floor and stack it at the same time.

The pancake theory requires that the mass be directed downwards. The mass was, through gravity, dirceted downwards. The mass of 1 floor of pulverized concrete is approximately equal to the mass of 1 floor of non-pulverized concrete. Its still (mostly) travelling downwards and its still under the influence of gravity.

Not only that, but collapse initiated, you had at least an order of magnitude too much energy for the next floor to support.
This means that even if 90% of the energy of the collapsing floor disappeared, the collapse would still occur.

After collapse-initiation, you're only adding energy to the collapse, so successive floors must also collapse

At least you admit your evidence is just some made-up diagram.

The diagram is an accurate representation of where the major debris fields were. Its a visualisation of where things ended up.

If you think its inaccurate, show its inaccurate. You're the master of digging up semi-relevant photos. Find me a building struck by perimiter column which isn't shown on this diagram. Find me a major location of debris which can be shown to be outside the areas indicated on this diagram. Show me that the locations of buildings is incorrect.

If you can't do any of these things, then basically what you're saying is that you can't actually refute any of the information in this diagram, but refuse to accept it because its a vuisualisation rather than something more tangible like photographs.

I'm somewhat amaxed, though, that you can post a jpeg of a criticism of NIST that they didn't release their visualizations
and then immediately attack something because its a visualisation.

I am always left wondering why the pancake theory supporters, who are so sure of themselves, rarely if ever link to official government websites...

You insist they are full of lies, misrepresentations etc. so why would I offer you a source that you already believe and claim is wrong?

I'm offering corroborating sources to the official sources I am assuming you're already familiar with but don't accept. I'm presenting findings and arguments from people who have looked at the evidence and amassed their own, independant, conclusions - the type of stuff that you're always saying is what we should have had in the first place.

So basically, I'm going as close as I can to giving you what you want (i.e. testable claims made from independant analysis), and you're criticising me because its not the stuff you've already rejected as being unsuitable!!! Brilliant.

Even the official theory is full of speculation...

Are you suggesting that it shouldn't contain speculation? That anyone can determine with 100% accuracy how everything happened?

However, the NIST report elsewhere says that its "probable collapse sequence" "does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable."

Thats because after collapse has initiated, its a done deal. The only people who disagree with this are people without qualifications in the relevant fields.

The FEMA report on WTC 7 states that "Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue".

No argument from me. That is exactly what the FEMA report concluded. It concluded that they needed to do more research rather than take a wild-assed guess which had a low probability. Sio, having concluded this, do you know what those sneaky, underhanded, despicable people did? They went and comissioned this further research, investigation and analysis.

What, exactly, is your point here? Are you suggesting they shouldn't have comissioned this further work?

[ctd...]

bonkey

[...ctd]

You are trying to defend the pancake theory, which fails to explain the molten steel found in the basements of the WTC more than a month later.

Given that the total energy added to the collapse by the alleged use of thermite would actually be pretty small, there is no alternate explanation for this molten steel exsiting more than a month later which becomes possible simply by adding thermite to the collaopse. Or, if there is, its been put in the hand-waving lets-avoid-the-math approach that is so typical of people who want to present pseudo-science instead of science.

More importantly, your "understanding" of the second law of thermodynamics suggests that the mere existence of this molten steel is impossible, as the heat must have spontaneously travelled from hotter areas to colder areas.

So if you want to knock "my" theory because it doesn't explain the unproven-but-alleged existence of molten steel, then I think you should first show properly how your theory explains it. Please note...I expect your understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to be taken into account here, and that you explain why they heat didn't behave in the manner you insist it must.

In reality the scientific community are smart people, so they obviously know the implications of the official story being exposed for the myth it really is.

Science isn't a hidden art. I've explained several ways you can actually scientifically establish the accuracy of (at least) some of your claims just as well as any of those smart-but-scared people. If you think the scientific community are frightened into keeping their mouths shut, then do the basic science yourself and show that the scientific community are en masse colluding with this alleged conspiracy of yours.

The reality is that if even one of the many things you say are "obvious" were true, it would be relatively trivial to show scientifically. You can't or won't do this - you are unwilling or unable. Which is it?

I think you were right to completely ignore my last post about Van Romero

If I ignored it, its because I didn't see it. I'll go back and address it this evening when I'm also havnig a look at that google video.

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

Ah. video! Far better than still pictures. I'll check this out as soon as I'm not behind a firewall which blocks it...should be this evening sometime.

So I'm not behind a firewall now and have reviewed the video. Frame by frame.

I am unable to detect any items which are propelled upwards - i.e. anything other than a dust-cloud which actually gains height from one frame to the next, or even which travels horizontally.

Given that the video footage is shot at ground-level, and is showing a low-angle shot (i.e. the effects near ground-level), this is hardly surprising.

Incidentally, how do you know they are massive steel beams? The entire building was clad in lighweight aluminium "strips". One would expect the majority of the "beam-shaped objects" to be these lightweight strips (from the outside of the building and more plentiful), so what, exactly, tips you off that these are massive steel beams?

To further this point....I'd like to refer the reader back to this picture supplied by tunaman

Look in towards the building...you'll see multiple "three-piece" sections. There's some almost dead-centre in teh picture. These are what the external support columns look like.

The debris towards the right-hand-side of the picture - teh stuff tunaman is convinced are massive steel columns - look nothing like this. THey are single-beam, shorter, and so on. tunaman will undoubtedly favour some explanation like them being "external support destroyed somehow by explosions, but each part still miraculously remaining straight". Me...I'll suggest they're not the "massive" external support columns at all, but lighter debris....some/much of which is likely to be the thin aluminium cladding which the external frame was clad with. Cause if they were massive support columns, they'd look like massive support columns.

jc

bonkey

As promised...a response to the Van Romero post of tunaman from a couple of pages ago. Like I said...I missed it.

tunaman wrote:

You said that not me. I never claimed it was proof of anything.

No...but you offered his initial position as support of something, despite it being a position that he has withdrawn from - which is something you didn't note.

It wouldn't be too different to me saying that Gandhi used to think pretty highly of Hitler....without noting that this was before Hitler got involved in all sorts of dirty business.

As expected, now that you do acknowledge his withdrawal, you use effectively what I said as your explanation as to why its still valid.

You don't think it's very possible he was gently encouraged to re-evaluate his position?

I think its possible, yes. I also think its possible that he re-evaluated his position all on his ownio, or for completely seperate reasons.

The thing is that in the absence of a need or evidence of an external force, I believe it is wrong to assign one, whereas you seem to be saying that because its possible, it shouldn't be ruled out.

Whatever happened I think it's fair to say his immediate claims were dangerous and not very clever.

I agree completely.

It does beg the question though...why were you presenting something as evidence to support your theory when you think of it as not very clever and it was subsequently retracted.

Again you feel the need to throw in a sly dig in an attempt to insult my intelligence.

Its neither sly nor a dig at your intelligence. Its a perfectly valid question. You presented something as evidence which is supposed to be given weight because the author is (at least somehwat) qualified in the relevant field. You neglect to note that this same author retracted his statement.

If you didn't know this, then fair enough....you did sloppy research. Thats not a comment on your intelligence, its a comment on the research you did in this particular case. We can all screw up. I've just seen a comment of mine where I used a double-negative that I shouldn't have...in effect making a statement exactly the reverse of what I did. I don't think me doing this nor someone else pointing it out implies anything about my intelligence...merely about my fallability. I would assert me originally missing this post is similarly indicative. So screwing up is no big deal...I was asking if thats what you did.

If you did know this, however, then you withheld information which is pertinent to the evaluation of the information you did present. Thats still not a comment on your intelligence. Its a comment either on how much you know about how to make a strong argument, or on your integrity.

Again, I'm not suggesting it was anything but an honest error on your part... In keeping with my tradition of not making assumptions about the existence of non-necessary motives, I asked you to clear it up.....something you still haven't done.

It's fairly obvious you know very little about the man, so I will let you in on some information I uncovered...

Its not fairly obvious that I know very little about him at all. I was pointing out that the statement was retracted, which it was. I left it to you to decide whether or not you wanted to discuss the issue, because I don't see it as terribly relevant. Suggesting his motives for retraction might have been less then a genuine change of heart still doesn't mean that we can consider his expert opinion in the same light. It means that maybe this guy believes explosives involved....which doesn't tell us much either way.

As to whether or not his subsequent successes are relevant...I don't know.

Whatever about his appointment in October, the subsequent links you offer should be offset against these lines in the original article you posted:

He said he and Denny Peterson, vice president for administration and finance, were en route to an office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research programs at Tech.

Tech President Dan Lopez said Tuesday that Tech had not been asked to take part in the investigation into the attacks. Tech often assists in forensic investigations into terrorist attacks, often by setting off similar explosions and studying the effects.

So it would seem that government-funding for Tech in defense and work in terrorist attacks was nothing new. Concern for the existence and continued well-being for this existing relationship could just as easily have been a motive for his retraction as someone putting overt pressure on him. It could also be that he looked further into it alone or with others in his company, and determined that he didn't have a case to make. The nature of his retraction should not be taken in the light of today's conspiracy-laden awareness of the events, but rather in the mindset that was prevalent in the days when the retraction was made.

Its entirely possible that he felt sheepish and simply wanted to disappear, not realising that his abruptness would be held up against him in later years by the very people who (presumably) are what prompted him to make a formal retraction in the first place - the conspiracy theorists who were mailing him as soon as his comments appeared.

Its also entirely probable that his retraction simply wasn't big news at the time, which would also contribute to why it doesn't go into massive detail about why he was wrong.

There was an awful lot of speculation offered in the press on the day in question and in the days immediatly after the tragedy and some of it was pretty wild. An awful lot of it wasn't retracted, because the story was following what was emerging as the events.

Consider, for example, that the footage of the strike on the first tower was only uncovered on Sep 12th - the day this article was posted. So Romero's comments were made when very little was really known.

Now look at [http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/ABQjournal/]the retraction[/url] again and see what was said. Here's the really important bit

Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion.

He talked to structural engineers.

Y'know...the most-qualified group to know about building collapse, and the one group from whom there is a notable lack of dissent regarding the official findings.

And then spent time looking at the tape. Something he couldn't had much of considering how soon after the attacks initial report was filed, how soon the tapes were available, etc.

His conclusion after time and expert consultation? He wasn't going to say outright he was wrong (insisting that a possibility still existed) but acknowledged that he now believed that fire did the job. He also pointed out that the possibility of an pressure-pulse in the absence of explosives also existed.

So, in the days when there were much bigger stories to publish, is it really surprising that the paper in question didn't devote a section of print to a detailed explanation of why an initial gut-reaction was being retracted, and the new version was "fire, but its still possible an explosion of malicious or non-malicious nature was involved"?

Like I said...I don't know. All I do know is that his initial statements should not be taken without considering the retraction. Subsequent events may or may not be significant, but cannot remove the uncertainty introduced, only compound it.

jc

tunaman

I go away for two weeks and nobody else has added to the debate?

bonkey wrote:

No, it doesn't.

A directional vector cannot be determined from a single image. It is technically, mathematically and scientifically impossible. You require two points to determine the simplest (i.e. straight-line) trajectories.

Here is a slow motion clip, which I think you and everybody else should find very interesting...

http://rei-rom.com/images/wtc1.gif

Would like to know what people make of it.

Y'know...when I was a maths student in Uni, the use of the word "clearly" or "obviously" in a student's calculations was typically understood as "I don't know how to show this properly". I have a suspicion that this is the case here as well.

Funny how you mention this, as many of the talking heads on TV always use the same words when they have nothing to back up their arguement.

Care to explain what the logic of this question is?

You said my claim that beams were launched into the air was baseless. So what exactly were the beams launched into if it wasn't air?

Incidentally, how do you know they are massive steel beams? The entire building was clad in lighweight aluminium "strips". One would expect the majority of the "beam-shaped objects" to be these lightweight strips (from the outside of the building and more plentiful), so what, exactly, tips you off that these are massive steel beams?

The buildings were completely blown apart, with some of those massive steel beams found sticking out of buildings hundreds of feet away.

Lets assume you're correct. You aren't, and I'll comprehensively explain why in a moment, but lets assume you are.

That must be killing you, even for the sake of your arguement.

You do realise that this utterly refutes any possibility of using cutting charges made out of thermite? In fact, the concept of a cutting charge is utterly refuted by your allegation that localised heating doesn't exist because heat transfers from hot to cold. So thermite couldn't cut steel.

So if you're right, and this heating couldn't have occurred, then thermite also could not have been used. Strange...

I think you will find I have never even speculated on the possibility of thermite being used. It really isn't important speculating on how the towers were brought down, as I don't have access to any of the evidence. That was the job of the NIST team, however they failed to even investigate the possibility that the three buildings were demolished, which is incredibly bad science, or criminal depending on which way you look at it.

If you want to show it fails then show it fails, rather than just alleging it does.

The buildings fell at below free-fall speeds, indicating resistance. The pancake theory predicts that they would fall at below free-fall speeds, due to resistance. I see no complete failure here - I see an agreement with observation until such times as you can produce the collapse time predicted by the pancake theory and verification that your 10-12 sec is an accurate figure.

Here is a short video, which tries to explain the pancake theory...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weqBynRZGG8&search=pancake%20theory

As you can see, the speed of the collapse means their theory just doesn't stand up, and literally collapses.

The pancake theory requires that the mass be directed downwards. The mass was, through gravity, dirceted downwards. The mass of 1 floor of pulverized concrete is approximately equal to the mass of 1 floor of non-pulverized concrete. Its still (mostly) travelling downwards and its still under the influence of gravity.

Not only that, but collapse initiated, you had at least an order of magnitude too much energy for the next floor to support.
This means that even if 90% of the energy of the collapsing floor disappeared, the collapse would still occur.

After collapse-initiation, you're only adding energy to the collapse, so successive floors must also collapse.

That is some seriously flawed logic there.

How is it possible that the potential energy of the 18 floors of structure above the collapse point, when it became kinetic energy was able to completely destroy 92 or so stories of building in less than 12 seconds?

How is it possible that the collapse was able to continue once it depleted itself of mass? Why did it at least not slow down as the mass amounts lessened (besides the resistance factor)?

Just one of many pictures, which fails to show any kind of pancaking...

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/.site1106.jpg

Where do you think the energy came from to do that to a 110 storey building?

The diagram is an accurate representation of where the major debris fields were. Its a visualisation of where things ended up.

The made up diagram you presented means nothing. What exactly are your trying to use it for, and what do you think it proves?

I'm somewhat amaxed, though, that you can post a jpeg of a criticism of NIST that they didn't release their visualizations and then immediately attack something because its a visualisation.

They didn't release their scale models because they concentrated on the impact of the planes and the damage they caused the buildings. They completely avoided investigating the collapses.

You insist they are full of lies, misrepresentations etc. so why would I offer you a source that you already believe and claim is wrong?

Well why not when you are so sure of their conclusions?

I'm offering corroborating sources to the official sources I am assuming you're already familiar with but don't accept. I'm presenting findings and arguments from people who have looked at the evidence and amassed their own, independant, conclusions - the type of stuff that you're always saying is what we should have had in the first place.

All your sources do is parrot the official theory, which is hardly thinking independantly. They are completely biased, with many of them failing to acknowledge any problems with the official theory, which I think you will agree is ridiculous. They quote the 9/11 commission as though it is their bible, when in reality it is full of massive holes. Here is a short video, where David Ray Griffin has a look at the findings of the 9/11 commission...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUuHIuWtoU&search=david%20griffin

So basically, I'm going as close as I can to giving you what you want (i.e. testable claims made from independant analysis), and you're criticising me because its not the stuff you've already rejected as being unsuitable!!! Brilliant. Are you suggesting that it shouldn't contain speculation? That anyone can determine with 100% accuracy how everything happened?

An independant and proper investigation which wasn't completely controlled by the prime suspects would have resulted in a far different conclusion.

Thats because after collapse has initiated, its a done deal.

No matter how many times you repeat that flawed logic doesn't make it true.

The only people who disagree with this are people without qualifications in the relevant fields.

There are a huge number of people that disagree with the official theory based on all the video footage and some common sense.

No argument from me. That is exactly what the FEMA report concluded. It concluded that they needed to do more research rather than take a wild-assed guess which had a low probability.

But that is exactly what they did do...

Sio, having concluded this, do you know what those sneaky, underhanded, despicable people did? They went and comissioned this further research, investigation and analysis.

What, exactly, is your point here? Are you suggesting they shouldn't have comissioned this further work?

I am suggesting that they should have done a proper investigation, you know before they quickly removed all the evidence...

http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/5530/wtc7cleaned1ag.jpg

Do you really think this US government funded research is going to reveal evidence of a demolition job?

tunaman

bonkey wrote:

So if you want to knock "my" theory because it doesn't explain the unproven-but-alleged existence of molten steel, then I think you should first show properly how your theory explains it.

Many people claimed to see this molten steel, including Mark Loizeaux, head of controlled demolition inc...

Why exactly would controlled demolition inc. be in charge of the clear-up operation, especially when the buildings supposedly just collapsed?

Here is some footage from six weeks later...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3D2myMbQjQ&search=molten%20steel

My theory is that explosives caused the existence of the molten steel found in the basements, more than a month later. I don't know enough about explosives and their effect on buildings to be able to speculate on exactly how the buildings could have been rigged. However Van Romero, being an expert on explosives and their effect on buildings would have a fairly good idea what he was talking about, don't you think?

Please note...I expect your understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to be taken into account here, and that you explain why they heat didn't behave in the manner you insist it must.

As far as I can tell the fire behaved in exactly the manner I would have expected. I am suggesting that the explosives involved are what produced the massive heat found in the basements, not fires that were hundreds of feet in the air.

The reality is that if even one of the many things you say are "obvious" were true, it would be relatively trivial to show scientifically. You can't or won't do this - you are unwilling or unable. Which is it?

Do you really believe exposing the official story of 9/11 as a myth is a relatively trivial issue?

Without being able to examine all the evidence, especially the steel that was quickly shipped off to China before anybody could properly examine it, and with it went the absolute proof.

Not suspicious in the slightest?

To further this point....I'd like to refer the reader back to this picture...http://img18.echo.cx/img18/6052/biggart5247jv.jpg

Look in towards the building...you'll see multiple "three-piece" sections. There's some almost dead-centre in teh picture. These are what the external support columns look like.

The debris towards the right-hand-side of the picture - teh stuff tunaman is convinced are massive steel columns - look nothing like this. THey are single-beam, shorter, and so on. tunaman will undoubtedly favour some explanation like them being "external support destroyed somehow by explosions, but each part still miraculously remaining straight". Me...I'll suggest they're not the "massive" external support columns at all, but lighter debris....some/much of which is likely to be the thin aluminium cladding which the external frame was clad with. Cause if they were massive support columns, they'd look like massive support columns.

Thin aluminium cladding, yeah right. They look like massive steel beams to me, but either way the buildings were completely destroyed by a massive energy force. That picture shows the building being completely blown apart, so again I have to ask where you think the energy came from to do so much damage?

tunaman

bonkey wrote:

As promised...a response to the Van Romero post of tunaman from a couple of pages ago. Like I said...I missed it.

No...but you offered his initial position as support of something, despite it being a position that he has withdrawn from - which is something you didn't note.

I provided a link to his statement, which included at the top of the page in capital letters a note about how he retracted it just a few days later. Anybody who was interested enough to click on the link couldn't fail to see it.

It wouldn't be too different to me saying that Gandhi used to think pretty highly of Hitler....without noting that this was before Hitler got involved in all sorts of dirty business.

Why do you have to resort to such a ridiculous comparison?

I think its possible, yes. I also think its possible that he re-evaluated his position all on his ownio, or for completely seperate reasons.

The thing is that in the absence of a need or evidence of an external force, I believe it is wrong to assign one, whereas you seem to be saying that because its possible, it shouldn't be ruled out.

Not only is it possible, it is highly probable, which is a fairly good reason not to rule it out.

I agree completely.

It does beg the question though...why were you presenting something as evidence to support your theory when you think of it as not very clever and it was subsequently retracted.

Not very clever, as in he didn't realise what he was doing what he made his explosive statement. I am presenting his statment because it was his honest opinion about what happened.

Its neither sly nor a dig at your intelligence. Its a perfectly valid question. You presented something as evidence which is supposed to be given weight because the author is (at least somehwat) qualified in the relevant field.

He could hardly be anymore qualified to comment on what happened, seeing as he was a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.

Its not fairly obvious that I know very little about him at all. I was pointing out that the statement was retracted, which it was. I left it to you to decide whether or not you wanted to discuss the issue, because I don't see it as terribly relevant. Suggesting his motives for retraction might have been less then a genuine change of heart still doesn't mean that we can consider his expert opinion in the same light. It means that maybe this guy believes explosives involved....which doesn't tell us much either way.

So you are suggesting people should ignore it, as you don't think it's relevant?

As to whether or not his subsequent successes are relevant...I don't know.

Just some more coincidences?

Its entirely possible that he felt sheepish and simply wanted to disappear, not realising that his abruptness would be held up against him in later years by the very people who (presumably) are what prompted him to make a formal retraction in the first place - the conspiracy theorists who were mailing him as soon as his comments appeared.

I reckon he was contacted by some people in the days between making the statement and retracting it, many of whom were probably very worried friends, not conspiracy theorists.

Its also entirely probable that his retraction simply wasn't big news at the time, which would also contribute to why it doesn't go into massive detail about why he was wrong.

Probably because he was right.

Has that thought ever even crossed your mind?

There was an awful lot of speculation offered in the press on the day in question and in the days immediatly after the tragedy and some of it was pretty wild. An awful lot of it wasn't retracted, because the story was following what was emerging as the events.

Any chance you could show the evidence of all this wild speculation in the press, becuase I don't remember seeing or hearing anything about it. Unless of course you mean the conspiracy theory that 19 muslim hijackers managed to pull off the biggest terrorist attack in history, under the orders of Bin Laden...

Ever heard about this denial Bin Laden issued less than a week after 9/11?

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/

In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.

"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.

Asked Sunday if he believed bin Laden's denial, President Bush said, "No question he is the prime suspect. No question about that."

I think it's safe to say there is a new prime suspect, and it isn't Bin Laden...

Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion.

He talked to structural engineers.

Your link to the article doesn't work, but unless he is actually quoted saying he talked to these structural engineers then I find the claim suspicious.

Any chance of another link, so I can have a look at the article in full?

Y'know...the most-qualified group to know about building collapse, and the one group from whom there is a notable lack of dissent regarding the official findings.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know structural engineers are not experts when it comes to buildings collapsing...

Like I said...I don't know. All I do know is that his initial statements should not be taken without considering the retraction. Subsequent events may or may not be significant, but cannot remove the uncertainty introduced, only compound it.

He was always going to make the retraction, unless he had a death wish. All the subsequent events only support my arguement that he was rewarded for retracting his statement.

bonkey

tunaman wrote:

Here is a slow motion clip, which I think you and everybody else should find very interesting... Would like to know what people make of it.

It still doesn't show what we were discussing - large beams being launched into the air. If you think it does, why don't you actually tell me where on the pic, and in what frame(s) I can see this.

said my claim that beams were launched into the air was baseless. So what exactly were the beams launched into if it wasn't air?

Has it not occurred to you yet that its the launch bit I'm questioning? All visible large objects are falling.

The buildings were completely blown apart, with some of those massive steel beams found sticking out of buildings hundreds of feet away.

They were all found at distances which are in broad agreement with what would be expected from a collapse of a building at such a height. No expert disagrees.

That was the job of the NIST team, however they failed to even investigate the possibility that the three buildings were demolished, which is incredibly bad science, or criminal depending on which way you look at it.

What basis do you have to claim that NIST did not investigate the possibility of demolition?

How is it possible that the potential energy of the 18 floors of structure above the collapse point, when it became kinetic energy was able to completely destroy 92 or so stories of building in less than 12 seconds?

Can you show categorically that the collapse was 12 seconds? Now...I'm not asking if you can post a link to a video where someone has decided where the start- and end- points are. I mean can you actually show that the collapse was 12 seconds? Because I don't believe you're correct.

How is it possible that the collapse was able to continue once it depleted itself of mass?

Who said it depeleted itself of mass? Are you suggesting nuclear fission or really really fast combustion was occurring here, and mass was tranforming into energy? THe vast majority of the mass continued downwards, with orders of magnitude more mass (and thus energy) than was required to instantaneously overload the load-bearing of subsequent floors.

Why did it at least not slow down as the mass amounts lessened (besides the resistance factor)?

As more floors were added to the collapse, the mass increased. If that wasn't hte case, then the total amount of debris at the end would weigh less than the initial 18 stories that "broke off" at collapse initiation....and I know you're not going to suggest that was the case.

Just one of many pictures, which fails to show any kind of pancaking...

What point in the collapse is this taken at?
How does it fail to show pancaking, considering taht you can't actually see the collapse-point?
Are you mistakenly assuming that the pancake theory says "no debris would have fallen outside the exterior walls at all", perhaps?

The made up diagram

Can you please stop calling it made-up. By definition, a diagram is not a photograph or other image of reality. It accurately represents the data it is intended to - the position of the debris-field, including the locations of the larger, more distant pieces of debris.

[/quote]
What exactly are your trying to use it for, and what do you think it proves?
[/quote]
I've already explained that. Why do you need me to repeat myself?

They completely avoided investigating the collapses.

Because they didn't need to. There isn't a single, qualified collapse expert who has said otherwise, nor who has disagreed that that the claim made is reasonable - once initiated, collapse would progress in the manner seen, and that the ensuing debris field is entirely consistent with such a collapse.

Not. a. single. Expert.

Anywhere.

Well why not when you are so sure of their conclusions?

I don't need to convince myself that the findings aren't wrong in this respect. However, for anyone who believes they are wrong, using the findings as proof would be pointless. Consider...had I not done what I did, and used NIST findings instead....would you have said "oh, well, if NIST say it, it must be correct"???

Or are we arriving at another situation where it doesn't actually matter who says NIST are correct, because you simply won't believe them? That your conviction in your own correctness is not actually open to review from insignificant factors such as corroborating evidence and the like?

All your sources do is parrot the official theory, which is hardly thinking independantly.

Oh, ffs. If you seriously believe that "independant thinking" equates to "disagreeing with this finding", then there seriously is no point in continuing this discussion.

You are basically saying that in order to be an "independant" thinker, you first have to choose to rule out certain conclusions.

They are completely biased,

How? Biased because they agree with findings you don't like? Because they don't agree with some "science-lite" or "science-less" theory based on some still photographs, a gut feeling, and a dislike of The MAn?

with many of them failing to acknowledge any problems with the official theory, which I think you will agree is ridiculous.

No, I don't agree. No-oine has ever said that the official theory leaves every question satisfactorily answered with no room for alternate possibilities. No-one except people like yourself who knock the offivcial theory, that is.

You construct this straw man of "oh, its not perfect" to knock it down...but its still just a straw man.

They quote the 9/11 commission as though it is their bible,

No, they quote it where they believ it is correct.

when in reality it is full of massive holes.

Are these holes in the bits being quoted?

If the 911 report, for example, were to say that the buildings were a specific height....would I be wrong to quote the report to show the building's height?

An independant and proper investigation which wasn't completely controlled by the prime suspects would have resulted in a far different conclusion.

Please define what an independant and proper investigation would have entailed. Who would have selected the independant investigators? Who could have proven they were independant? Given the silence of the entire body of structural engineers not just in the US, but on the face of the entire planet in supporting the "its a coverup" theory, what possible methods could have been employed to ensure independence and propriety in such an investigation

Unless you can show how such an investigation could have existed, and how we - the public - could have had faith in it from the outset, this entire line of argument is just smoke-and-mirrors. Yuo're effectively demanding something you know (or at least, that I believe you know) was impossible to have anyway.

No matter how many times you repeat that flawed logic doesn't make it true.

Show me one qualified expert who disagrees, and I'll accept that its not necessarily true. Just one.

There are a huge number of people that disagree with the official theory based on all the video footage and some common sense.

Yes, but I referred to qualified people, not just people.

I couldn't care if every farmer on the planet thinks the same as you....their combined voices weigh less than a single qualified expert.

But that is exactly what they did do...

FEMA concluded they didn't know what caused it. They said more investigation was needed. They made sure that investigation was carried out.

Yes, they also put a "best guess" in their findings. They were obliged to. They didn't overstate their case, because they pointed out that even though it was a best guess, they could show it was unlikely and admitted it was unsatisfactory.

I am suggesting that they should have done a proper investigation, you know before they quickly removed all the evidence...

The people who carried out the investigation (NIST) never once made any comments about a lack of physical evidence. They asked for and received what they needed.

I agree entirely that the remainder should have been held for longer, but not because it would have aided in the investigation of the collapse, but rather because I agree with the NYFB who maintain there were potentially a lot of lessons to learn about high-rise fires.

Do you really think this US government funded research is going to reveal evidence of a demolition job?

So you think this independant investigation should have been privately funded too, and carried out by someone else even though NIST are the foremost authority on the matters at hand? I see.